lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] mm, memory_hotplug: fix uninitialized pages fallouts.
On Tue 29-01-19 22:38:19, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 18:49, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue 29-01-19 14:14:47, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:45:04 +0100
> > > Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > Mikhail has posted fixes for the two bugs quite some time ago [1]. I
> > > > have pushed back on those fixes because I believed that it is much
> > > > better to plug the problem at the initialization time rather than play
> > > > whack-a-mole all over the hotplug code and find all the places which
> > > > expect the full memory section to be initialized. We have ended up with
> > > > 2830bf6f05fb ("mm, memory_hotplug: initialize struct pages for the full
> > > > memory section") merged and cause a regression [2][3]. The reason is
> > > > that there might be memory layouts when two NUMA nodes share the same
> > > > memory section so the merged fix is simply incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > In order to plug this hole we really have to be zone range aware in
> > > > those handlers. I have split up the original patch into two. One is
> > > > unchanged (patch 2) and I took a different approach for `removable'
> > > > crash. It would be great if Mikhail could test it still works for his
> > > > memory layout.
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181105150401.97287-2-zaslonko@linux.ibm.com
> > > > [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666948
> > > > [3] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190125163938.GA20411@dhcp22.suse.cz
> > >
> > > I verified that both patches fix the issues we had with valid_zones
> > > (with mem=2050M) and removable (with mem=3075M).
> > >
> > > However, the call trace in the description of your patch 1 is wrong.
> > > You basically have the same call trace for test_pages_in_a_zone in
> > > both patches. The "removable" patch should have the call trace for
> > > is_mem_section_removable from Mikhails original patches:
> >
> > Thanks for testing. Can I use you Tested-by?
> >
> > > CONFIG_DEBUG_VM_PGFLAGS=y
> > > kernel parameter mem=3075M
> > > --------------------------
> > > page:000003d08300c000 is uninitialized and poisoned
> > > page dumped because: VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PagePoisoned(p))
> > > Call Trace:
> > > ([<000000000038596c>] is_mem_section_removable+0xb4/0x190)
> > > [<00000000008f12fa>] show_mem_removable+0x9a/0xd8
> > > [<00000000008cf9c4>] dev_attr_show+0x34/0x70
> > > [<0000000000463ad0>] sysfs_kf_seq_show+0xc8/0x148
> > > [<00000000003e4194>] seq_read+0x204/0x480
> > > [<00000000003b53ea>] __vfs_read+0x32/0x178
> > > [<00000000003b55b2>] vfs_read+0x82/0x138
> > > [<00000000003b5be2>] ksys_read+0x5a/0xb0
> > > [<0000000000b86ba0>] system_call+0xdc/0x2d8
> > > Last Breaking-Event-Address:
> > > [<000000000038596c>] is_mem_section_removable+0xb4/0x190
> > > Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception: panic_on_oops
> >
> > Yeah, this is c&p mistake on my end. I will use this trace instead.
> > Thanks for spotting.
>
>
> Michal, I am late?

I do not think so. I plan to repost tomorrow with the updated changelog
and gathered review and tested-by tags. Can I assume yours as well?

> I am also tested these patches and can confirm that issue fixed again
> with new approach.
> I also attach two dmesg first when issue was reproduced and second
> with applied patch (problem not reproduced).

Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-29 21:25    [W:0.056 / U:22.668 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site